You don't watch cable news. And you started a thread about liberal media bias.

Right on.

It's a bit like starting a thread asking people to place bets on when a man will be 'thrown under the bus' for doing nothing illegal and then complaining, when others defend him, that the facts haven't even come out.

It's a bit like starting a thread asking people to place bets on when a man will be 'thrown under the bus' for doing nothing illegal and then complaining, when others defend him, that the facts haven't even come out.

Yeah just like how they haven't even finished up investigating that Bill Richardson fellow.

It is also entirely possible that the entire source sucks. I'll tell you what Mid, you give me what you consider to be the GOOD cable news programs and I will sample them to see if they are better than sucktacular.

My criteria for suck is as follow....

If they spend more time talking about the news than reporting it.
If they spend half an hour to give you two paragraphs of information.
If they "shape" the news rather than reporting it.
If they spend more time promoting soft news like "let's have x celebrity from y co-branded network show chat about topical news.

All those suck no matter the source.

Give me some non-suckiness and I will sample it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Another way of saying you see only what you want to see?

Actually the opposite, I watch what sucks. All television news sucks. It is slow, dumbed down, repeats endlessly and the signal to noise ratio is terrible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Saw Joe the Plumber/ Reporter on The Daily Show:

He can't speak English.
He believes that, since he's a Christian, God will protect him on his trip.

Wasn't he trying to buy a business or something?

Did you beg for those minutes of your life back or was your sample just bad?

It is also entirely possible that the entire source sucks. I'll tell you what Mid, you give me what you consider to be the GOOD cable news programs and I will sample them to see if they are better than sucktacular.

I don't think that's the debate midwinter is having with you.

I think we can all mostly agree that the majority of TV news sucks pretty hard a pretty large majority of the time.

The disagreement is completely independent of suck vs. non-suck. It's about "in the tankness" or whatever phrase it is that you like to use, and if you have a prayer of accurately assessing it in your "samples."

The disagreement is completely independent of suck vs. non-suck. It's about "in the tankness" or whatever phrase it is that you like to use, and if you have a prayer of accurately assessing it in your "samples."

Oh, I think the assessment is fairly clear...

In the tank for "liberals" = suck.
In the tank for "conservatives" = non-suck (except that his assessment sees no such thing.....).

It is also entirely possible that the entire source sucks. I'll tell you what Mid, you give me what you consider to be the GOOD cable news programs and I will sample them to see if they are better than sucktacular.

My criteria for suck is as follow....

If they spend more time talking about the news than reporting it.
If they spend half an hour to give you two paragraphs of information.
If they "shape" the news rather than reporting it.
If they spend more time promoting soft news like "let's have x celebrity from y co-branded network show chat about topical news.

All those suck no matter the source.

Give me some non-suckiness and I will sample it.

See Flounder's response.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

It is also entirely possible that the entire source sucks. I'll tell you what Mid, you give me what you consider to be the GOOD cable news programs and I will sample them to see if they are better than sucktacular.

My criteria for suck is as follow....

If they spend more time talking about the news than reporting it.
If they spend half an hour to give you two paragraphs of information.
If they "shape" the news rather than reporting it.
If they spend more time promoting soft news like "let's have x celebrity from y co-branded network show chat about topical news.

All those suck no matter the source.

Give me some non-suckiness and I will sample it.

Actually the opposite, I watch what sucks. All television news sucks. It is slow, dumbed down, repeats endlessly and the signal to noise ratio is terrible.

Did you beg for those minutes of your life back or was your sample just bad?

Well, now, see? I agree with everything you say here! We are as one! Ewwwwwww!!!!!

I'l go further, and say the the journalism industry in these United States pretty much sucks balls, for pretty much the reasons you lay out.

However, none of this particularly implies "liberalism", do it? In fact, we might surmise that an industry that privileges scoops, scandal, rumor, theatrics and brawling over "reporting the news" might favor anyone who is prepared to say outlandish things, make wild accusations, bully, shout, get angry, and make repeated appeals to conventional wisdom about the wisdom of simple folks, the infallibility of America, the general ickiness of intellectuals and elites of all sorts, and generally treat television appearances as pure theater.

In this environment, people who actually "believe stuff", insofar as it compels them to try and make reasoned cases instead of scoring cheap shots and simply carrying on in an ever louder voice, would be at a distinct disadvantage.

You'll note that one of the very few actual liberals allowed to hold sway on the TV, Rachel Maddow, is mild to a fault and endlessly respectful of her guests. Very little fireworks on her show, I'm sure the network people are mystified as to why her ratings are so good, but hey, who knows? Maybe it'll catch on.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

I think we can all mostly agree that the majority of TV news sucks pretty hard a pretty large majority of the time.

The disagreement is completely independent of suck vs. non-suck. It's about "in the tankness" or whatever phrase it is that you like to use, and if you have a prayer of accurately assessing it in your "samples."

So let me see if I have this right.

I think it sucks the majority of the time. I also think it has a liberal bias. I can't realize it sucks the majority of the time because I won't be able to measure it appropriately due to my perception of bias.

You and presumably others see no bias and still think it majorly sucks as well. However your perception of suckiness is valid since you don't see a conspiratorial/made up/etc. bias.

Aside from attacking me, if we both arrive that the same conclusion, how is it that one can be wrong and the other not.

Are we playing the game where conservatives are disqualified from participating again? I can't have an opinion on this matter? You appear to desire to change the debate from the news to me. If I go to reeducation camp will I have "a prayer of accurately assessing it?"

I post plenty of links and sources. I don't watch cable news or evening news with any regularity because they are a terrible source for news. In addition to the numerous reasons I listed (which I guess you agree with since they aren't in dispute) I add one more, bias.

Why would my "samples" allow me to be right on all the other criteria but not on the bias? I asked for example of good news, you and mid appear to now want to focus on me instead of providing the examples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

Oh, I think the assessment is fairly clear...

In the tank for "liberals" = suck.
In the tank for "conservatives" = non-suck (except that his assessment sees no such thing.....).

So, it's all "suck" in his assessment.

No I said it all sucks. Network and cable news sucks. I've reiterated that across several posts for several years. If Couric gives an interview to Obama and Palin as an example, I can read that 30 minute interview in about five minutes. The questions are often self explanatory but if I doubt the tone, I can watch the video to make sure I haven't misread the tone of the text. The fact that I won't watch it for 30 minutes or watch it on CNN with a scroll across the button and analysis happening over the interview is just a rejection of the suck.

Find where I have claimed that watching Fox or some other source gives you good TV news and other sources bad TV news. Do the search.

Quote:

Originally Posted by midwinter

See Flounder's response.

You call that a real response? I expect more of you than "sorry you can't judge."

Well, now, see? I agree with everything you say here! We are as one! Ewwwwwww!!!!!

I'l go further, and say the the journalism industry in these United States pretty much sucks balls, for pretty much the reasons you lay out.

However, none of this particularly implies "liberalism", do it? In fact, we might surmise that an industry that privileges scoops, scandal, rumor, theatrics and brawling over "reporting the news" might favor anyone who is prepared to say outlandish things, make wild accusations, bully, shout, get angry, and make repeated appeals to conventional wisdom about the wisdom of simple folks, the infallibility of America, the general ickiness of intellectuals and elites of all sorts, and generally treat television appearances as pure theater.

In this environment, people who actually "believe stuff", insofar as it compels them to try and make reasoned cases instead of scoring cheap shots and simply carrying on in an ever louder voice, would be at a distinct disadvantage.

You'll note that one of the very few actual liberals allowed to hold sway on the TV, Rachel Maddow, is mild to a fault and endlessly respectful of her guests. Very little fireworks on her show, I'm sure the network people are mystified as to why her ratings are so good, but hey, who knows? Maybe it'll catch on.

I've never denied that there are conservative personalities on television. The difference is that those are not considered news hosts. You don't see Michelle Malkin hosting the CBS Evening News and giving her slant as hard news. You do see Katie Couric doing that and worse still you see Katie as objective and Michelle as slanted.

Both are slanted.

Even within the talkers, there is a double-standard. Do you consider This Week, Meet the Press, etc. to be on par with Bill O'Reilly? If you put one above the other, why would that be so?

See I won't watch Bill O'Reilly. I enjoyed MTP with Tim Russert. I enjoyed This Week before George took over. I would bet that in your mind though, MTP is "news" and Bill O'Reilly is just a buffoon with a talk show.

I'll agree that Bill O'Reilly is a buffoon with a talk show. The difference is that Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos, etc are just as buffoonish. When I decide to sample the evening news I shouldn't have to watch the anchor discuss it with a talk show host to spin the news. That is bias. When you have a biased host, no better than a talking head, discussing the news with a talking head, what you have isn't news, but a spin round table attempting to create consensus around a talking point.

The worst example of this was MSNBC this last election season letting Olbermann and Matthews run the election coverage. I can assure you that if Fox had Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter running the election coverage you would see it as sucky with bias as a component of that coverage.

I see the same thing when Katie Couric is talking to Bob Schieffer as "analysis" of the news. That isn't news, it is a talk show with talk show bias.

You call that a real response? I expect more of you than "sorry you can't judge."

Apologies, master. I was in a hurry to go hear Peter Sagal speak. I will try to do better in the future.

I think, though, that if this discussion is to continue, we need to suss out precisely what we all mean when we say "liberal media" versus "news" versus "anchor" versus "talking head." You cannot claim "the media is liberal" and then ignore all of the conservative newspapers, talk shows, etc. If you don't mean "media" and instead mean "journalism" then we need to determine what that means. If you don't mean "journalism" but instead mean "print journalism" then we need to determine that.

And now I'm off to walk the dog.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Apologies, master. I was in a hurry to go hear Peter Sagal speak. I will try to do better in the future.

I think, though, that if this discussion is to continue, we need to suss out precisely what we all mean when we say "liberal media" versus "news" versus "anchor" versus "talking head." You cannot claim "the media is liberal" and then ignore all of the conservative newspapers, talk shows, etc. If you don't mean "media" and instead mean "journalism" then we need to determine what that means. If you don't mean "journalism" but instead mean "print journalism" then we need to determine that.

And now I'm off to walk the dog.

So let's do that then. That would be quite a bite to take at first with say the entire industry. So pick a segment, show, network, whatever and let us start there.

It is also entirely possible that the entire source sucks. I'll tell you what Mid, you give me what you consider to be the GOOD cable news programs and I will sample them to see if they are better than sucktacular.

My criteria for suck is as follow....

If they spend more time talking about the news than reporting it.
If they spend half an hour to give you two paragraphs of information.
If they "shape" the news rather than reporting it.
If they spend more time promoting soft news like "let's have x celebrity from y co-branded network show chat about topical news.

All those suck no matter the source.

Give me some non-suckiness and I will sample it.

Actually the opposite, I watch what sucks. All television news sucks. It is slow, dumbed down, repeats endlessly and the signal to noise ratio is terrible.

Did you beg for those minutes of your life back or was your sample just bad?

Quote:

Actually the opposite, I watch what sucks. All television news sucks. It is slow, dumbed down, repeats endlessly and the signal to noise ratio is terrible.

Like I said.......

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I think it sucks the majority of the time. I also think it has a liberal bias. I can't realize it sucks the majority of the time because I won't be able to measure it appropriately due to my perception of bias.

You and presumably others see no bias and still think it majorly sucks as well. However your perception of suckiness is valid since you don't see a conspiratorial/made up/etc. bias.

Aside from attacking me, if we both arrive that the same conclusion, how is it that one can be wrong and the other not.

Are we playing the game where conservatives are disqualified from participating again? I can't have an opinion on this matter? You appear to desire to change the debate from the news to me. If I go to reeducation camp will I have "a prayer of accurately assessing it?"

I post plenty of links and sources. I don't watch cable news or evening news with any regularity because they are a terrible source for news. In addition to the numerous reasons I listed (which I guess you agree with since they aren't in dispute) I add one more, bias.

Why would my "samples" allow me to be right on all the other criteria but not on the bias? I asked for example of good news, you and mid appear to now want to focus on me instead of providing the examples.

No I said it all sucks. Network and cable news sucks. I've reiterated that across several posts for several years. If Couric gives an interview to Obama and Palin as an example, I can read that 30 minute interview in about five minutes. The questions are often self explanatory but if I doubt the tone, I can watch the video to make sure I haven't misread the tone of the text. The fact that I won't watch it for 30 minutes or watch it on CNN with a scroll across the button and analysis happening over the interview is just a rejection of the suck.

Find where I have claimed that watching Fox or some other source gives you good TV news and other sources bad TV news. Do the search.

You call that a real response? I expect more of you than "sorry you can't judge."

Flounder seems to grasp the heart of the matter.

Sorry if it goes down hard.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I've never denied that there are conservative personalities on television. The difference is that those are not considered news hosts. You don't see Michelle Malkin hosting the CBS Evening News and giving her slant as hard news. You do see Katie Couric doing that and worse still you see Katie as objective and Michelle as slanted.

Both are slanted.

Even within the talkers, there is a double-standard. Do you consider This Week, Meet the Press, etc. to be on par with Bill O'Reilly? If you put one above the other, why would that be so?

See I won't watch Bill O'Reilly. I enjoyed MTP with Tim Russert. I enjoyed This Week before George took over. I would bet that in your mind though, MTP is "news" and Bill O'Reilly is just a buffoon with a talk show.

I'll agree that Bill O'Reilly is a buffoon with a talk show. The difference is that Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos, etc are just as buffoonish. When I decide to sample the evening news I shouldn't have to watch the anchor discuss it with a talk show host to spin the news. That is bias. When you have a biased host, no better than a talking head, discussing the news with a talking head, what you have isn't news, but a spin round table attempting to create consensus around a talking point.

The worst example of this was MSNBC this last election season letting Olbermann and Matthews run the election coverage. I can assure you that if Fox had Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter running the election coverage you would see it as sucky with bias as a component of that coverage.

I see the same thing when Katie Couric is talking to Bob Schieffer as "analysis" of the news. That isn't news, it is a talk show with talk show bias.

There is no difference. They're are all after ratings. That's their bread and butter. They all editorialize pretty much equally. The one's with the big slant one way or another that I see is FOX. And you must know which way they go. Blatantly.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Fox News... set up a few years before GW becomes president, by Murdoch and Ailes, a Republican strategist.

My wife just read a book that says Fox was set up around the time people were beginning to plan for a Bush run for the WH. A weak man, GW needed a strong voice to carry the GOP message. The book also suggests that this was part of the overall plan to lead US in to war with Iraq.

Wish there was an Enlgish translation; it's by a Japanese journalist who lived in the US for 20 years and was in New York on 9/11.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

I've posted plenty of links over the years. If you want to dispute it then dispute it. Citing the exception doesn't prove the rule. Voting patterns, donation patters, and analysis of the content shows the bias. Polls show the public is aware of the bias. No on has to do the work to convince you against your will.

I've posted plenty of links over the years. If you want to dispute it then dispute it. Citing the exception doesn't prove the rule. Voting patterns, donation patters, and analysis of the content shows the bias. Polls show the public is aware of the bias. No on has to do the work to convince you against your will.

Whoa whoa whoa there kneejerk mcjerksalot. I meant that it was up to you to pick a show or whatever and then we discuss.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Whoa whoa whoa there kneejerk mcjerksalot. I meant that it was up to you to pick a show or whatever and then we discuss.

How is a claim a show? I'd love to see a more recent version of that study. The press gave up even the pretense of objectivity in the last election cycle. I had an entire thread of examples. Pick something you want to discuss.

How is a claim a show? I'd love to see a more recent version of that study. The press gave up even the pretense of objectivity in the last election cycle. I had an entire thread of examples. Pick something you want to discuss.

How is a claim a show? I'd love to see a more recent version of that study. The press gave up even the pretense of objectivity in the last election cycle. I had an entire thread of examples. Pick something you want to discuss.

Sigh.

As I said earlier, YOU pick something. Anything. Pick something. A show. A time slot. A paper. An editorial board. An anchor. I don't care. You are making the claim that the "media" is biased. That's too much to even begin to assess, and so we need something smaller.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

I'll also note that while "reporters" may tend to vote Democratic, "the media" is fucking owned by giant corporations who are interested in ushering in "socialism" in the way that the Dick Cheney is big on solar.

And, of course, I'll cite the many, many studies, too numerous to mention, and the many, many links I've posted previously that I shouldn't have to post again, having so thoroughly made my case.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

As I said earlier, YOU pick something. Anything. Pick something. A show. A time slot. A paper. An editorial board. An anchor. I don't care. You are making the claim that the "media" is biased. That's too much to even begin to assess, and so we need something smaller.

I believe if you go back in that thread I've already done this. I pulled out all the questions asked by Katie Couric to both Barack Obama and John McCain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

I would just like to point out that the media has a very pronounced conservative bias.

You can point all you want.

Quote:

Here is a book with a great many footnotes that says so, here is a website that documents countless examples of same, here is a website that notes how corporations simply purchase favorable coverage, and here is a news story explaining how the the Pentagon deployed shills to serve as expert analysts on the news shows while peddling the hawkish administration line.

I'll have to look at that book you mention and thank you for the link. It would be the first recommended book on here to feature foot/endnotes because others I read, like the Kansas book for example had no such things.

Media Matters does make an occasional good point, but for the most part it is a joke. A large number of the articles assert that the media "ignores" some point because they don't agree. I guess the court was just "ignoring" the plaintiff because they didn't buy her legal argument as well. That article claims that as an editorial advocating for a position, they "ignored" the effect of the court decision but they didn't ignore it, they just don't agree with it regardless of the effect. That reasoning is asinine.

Quote:

I'll also note that while "reporters" may tend to vote Democratic, "the media" is fucking owned by giant corporations who are interested in ushering in "socialism" in the way that the Dick Cheney is big on solar.

You're asking me to ignore the reality of how the reporters vote for the claimed "intent" of the corporations. Why is this the default position of liberal arguments so often? I genuinely find it very confusing. It says ignore reality because of what we claim is going on in the hearts and minds of someone who's actions do not reflect that claimed intent.

Quote:

And, of course, I'll cite the many, many studies, too numerous to mention, and the many, many links I've posted previously that I shouldn't have to post again, having so thoroughly made my case.

Of course you will but then again, you're the type who tries to get someone banned for "spamming" the forums and then when they won't "spam" them again to repeat themselves assert just the opposite that they just don't want to prove their point. Welcome to bizarro reasoning world.

Of course you will but then again, you're the type who tries to get someone banned for "spamming" the forums and then when they won't "spam" them again to repeat themselves assert just the opposite that they just don't want to prove their point. Welcome to bizarro reasoning world.

Not sure how I qualify as that "type" when I've never done any such thing, as I'm sure Lundy can attest. However, I do wonder if such a baseless, lying, personal accusation ought not to be scrutinized and dealt with.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Not sure how I qualify as that "type" when I've never done any such thing, as I'm sure Lundy can attest. However, I do wonder if such a baseless, lying, personal accusation ought not to be scrutinized and dealt with.

If I recall correctly you can't claim he's lying. Or something. I dunno. I think wrong or baseless is out too.

So the charge now is that Katie Couric's reporting on Obama and McCain was liberally biased? I'm just trying to make sure that we're all on the same page.

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

Not sure how I qualify as that "type" when I've never done any such thing, as I'm sure Lundy can attest. However, I do wonder if such a baseless, lying, personal accusation ought not to be scrutinized and dealt with.

Don't like the tactic? Neither do I. Doesn't it suck when the thread becomes about someone instead of a topic. I just thought I would give you a taste of what I deal with daily. Don't worry I knew in your "heart and mind" that you wanted to do those things and so the reality of your actions doesn't matter.

We'll just call you a corporation and me a news anchor and all will be well. If you want to mock someone, then enjoy the ride.

Quote:

Originally Posted by screener

It's the Coulter generalization.

Oh you forget, Coulter is right, but people don't like her "TONE."

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinea

If I recall correctly you can't claim he's lying. Or something. I dunno. I think wrong or baseless is out too.

OK. Just for shits and giggles, I'll stipulate that. Hell, I'll stipulate that Couric's interviews with the Obama camp and the entire McCain camp were wildly, other-the-top, worthy of Z-Mag or the Nation lefty reporting. In fact, I'll stipulate that Couric got all of her questions for Obama from the Obama camp and got all of her questions for McCain from Commies for Obama, LLC.

It hardly follows that the entire "media" is therefore liberal. What next?

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Given that Kennedy, you know, is getting slammed for, you know, not being the smartest, you know, sounding person in the, you know, universe I dunno that Palin's, you know, disasterous, you know, interview, is some indication, you know, of liberal bias.

Palin got crucified for sounding like a complete ditz. Kennedy is seeing the same thing.

The media bias is that they're out to make money. They peddle what sells. Tell me that "conservative" media isn't big business and I'll call you a liar. Same for "liberal" media.

OK. Just for shits and giggles, I'll stipulate that. Hell, I'll stipulate that Couric's interviews with the Obama camp and the entire McCain camp were wildly, other-the-top, worthy of Z-Mag or the Nation lefty reporting. In fact, I'll stipulate that Couric got all of her questions for Obama from the Obama camp and got all of her questions for McCain from Commies for Obama, LLC.

It hardly follows that the entire "media" is therefore liberal. What next?

I'm going to ask you to clarify your point/request rather than just be bitchy when I don't hit it right.

We said we would tackle some individual issues because the media as a whole was too large to tackle. It appears you concede this issue. aka Couric, but then note it doesn't prove the entire field is that way which again, we've conveniently agreed to not tackle as a whole for now.

We do have have studies that have tackled the entire media and they all scream liberal.

So please clarify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinea

Given that Kennedy, you know, is getting slammed for, you know, not being the smartest, you know, sounding person in the, you know, universe I dunno that Palin's, you know, disasterous, you know, interview, is some indication, you know, of liberal bias.

Palin got crucified for sounding like a complete ditz. Kennedy is seeing the same thing.

The media bias is that they're out to make money. They peddle what sells. Tell me that "conservative" media isn't big business and I'll call you a liar. Same for "liberal" media.

I would not call what Kennedy has gotten anywhere near what Palin has gotten. Find me the stories that go three degrees of separation from Kennedy. Show me where people are demanding her private medical records, digging into her entire financial past (they won't dig into her finances at all) are examining everything she ever did and are distorting it into something untrue.

Please point me there. All I see is that they called her on a verbal tick and several of the articles noted it but still tried to excuse it.

Media bias in the United States is the description of media being used to systematically present a particular point of view. Claims of bias in the media include claims of liberal bias, conservative bias, mainstream bias,[1] and corporate bias.[2] There are a variety of watchdog groups that attempt to find the facts behind both biased reporting and unfounded claims of bias, and research about media bias is a subject of systematic scholarship in a variety of disciplines.[3]

Quote:

Accusers of liberal or conservative bias alike typically ignore the dictionary meanings of those words (as do modern political parties). In fact, in the current political discourse, the words seem to have meaning that shifts depending on point of view. The Oxford American Dictionary defines "liberal" in the political sense as "favoring democratic reform and individual liberty" and "conservative" in the political sense as "favoring private enterprise and freedom from government control".[62]

Off with all their heads I say.

No more op-ed pieces, no more talk radio, no more talk TV, no more commercials, no more advertisements, no more speeches, no more interviews.

No more talking or writing allowed, we would just see people doing things instead of people telling us of people doing things.

Just give everyone a camcorder, bump it all up to YouTube, and everyone gets random feeds.

Just totally tasteless odorless news reporting.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

I would not call what Kennedy has gotten anywhere near what Palin has gotten. Find me the stories that go three degrees of separation from Kennedy. Show me where people are demanding her private medical records, digging into her entire financial past (they won't dig into her finances at all) are examining everything she ever did and are distorting it into something untrue.

Please point me there. All I see is that they called her on a verbal tick and several of the articles noted it but still tried to excuse it.

1) She's not a VP candidate...the 2nd female VP candidate and the 1st republican one. The visibility is a little lower. Ask the average joe on the street and they have no clue about Kennedy and the senate seat.
2) She's a Kennedy...the only surviving child of JFK. Her life is an open book.
3) While she sounds like an idiot she went to Radcliffe/Harvard, has a law degree from Columbia, written books and done significant charity work. As opposed to gone to a series of community colleges before finally going to University of Idaho and getting a BA in communications-journalism.
4) Financial past? Are you kidding me? Which part of Kennedy and Onasis confuses anyone?
5) She's not likely to get the appointment but you never know.

Palin was an unknown Governor from a state half the folks in the US probably can't find on a map, who was the VP candidate for an old guy that had cancer. She deservedly got a lot more scrutiny than the daughter of a dead president that grew up, in the public eye who might, at most, become a Senator for a couple years.

They will "dig" into her financial past if she's lucky enough to get the appointment. But geez, what the hell does anyone really expect to find other than she's filthy rich?